抗议政治中的差异化:政治局内人和局外人的参与》。

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Endre Borbáth
{"title":"抗议政治中的差异化:政治局内人和局外人的参与》。","authors":"Endre Borbáth","doi":"10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The political participation literature has documented a long-term trend of the normalization of noninstitutional participation that is often equated with the conventionalization of engagement in protest politics. Less is known on the extent to which noninstitutional forms are differentiated by their mobilization context. Population surveys find it difficult to contextualize individual engagement, and on-site surveys point to effects that are hard to generalize. This study fills this gap by emphasizing differentiation and distinguishing participation according to the issue of engagement. It introduces a conceptual distinction between political insiders and outsiders, defined based on the extent to which they are embedded in the organizational landscape of the dominant cleavage dimension. Using an original survey conducted in Germany during the Covid-19 crisis, the analysis demonstrates that general-population surveys are fit to examine issue-specific participation patterns. The results expose an insider and outsider divide, captured by the effect of attitudinal and behavioral indicators, and demonstrates that the two groups are equally likely to participate in noninstitutional forms. However, insiders engage on the established issues of climate and anti-racism, whereas outsiders engage on the new issues of Covid-19 related economic assistance and civil liberties restrictions. In addition, dynamic models reveal that noninstitutional participation is rooted in volatile issue preferences. Overall, the paper argues that participation during the Covid-19 crisis has furthered the trend towards a differentiated protest arena.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7.</p>","PeriodicalId":48166,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835032/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differentiation in Protest Politics: Participation by Political Insiders and Outsiders.\",\"authors\":\"Endre Borbáth\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The political participation literature has documented a long-term trend of the normalization of noninstitutional participation that is often equated with the conventionalization of engagement in protest politics. Less is known on the extent to which noninstitutional forms are differentiated by their mobilization context. Population surveys find it difficult to contextualize individual engagement, and on-site surveys point to effects that are hard to generalize. This study fills this gap by emphasizing differentiation and distinguishing participation according to the issue of engagement. It introduces a conceptual distinction between political insiders and outsiders, defined based on the extent to which they are embedded in the organizational landscape of the dominant cleavage dimension. Using an original survey conducted in Germany during the Covid-19 crisis, the analysis demonstrates that general-population surveys are fit to examine issue-specific participation patterns. The results expose an insider and outsider divide, captured by the effect of attitudinal and behavioral indicators, and demonstrates that the two groups are equally likely to participate in noninstitutional forms. However, insiders engage on the established issues of climate and anti-racism, whereas outsiders engage on the new issues of Covid-19 related economic assistance and civil liberties restrictions. In addition, dynamic models reveal that noninstitutional participation is rooted in volatile issue preferences. Overall, the paper argues that participation during the Covid-19 crisis has furthered the trend towards a differentiated protest arena.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Behavior\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835032/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政治参与文献记录了非制度性参与正常化的长期趋势,这种正常化通常等同于参与抗议政治的常规化。至于非机构形式在多大程度上因其动员背景而有所区别,目前所知甚少。人口调查发现很难将个人的参与情况具体化,而现场调查指出的效果也很难普遍化。本研究通过强调差异化和根据参与问题区分参与来填补这一空白。它引入了政治内部人和外部人之间的概念性区分,这种区分是根据他们在主导裂痕维度的组织景观中的嵌入程度来定义的。该分析使用了 19 年科维德危机期间在德国进行的一项原创调查,证明普通人群调查适合于研究特定问题的参与模式。结果揭示了内部人和外部人之间的鸿沟,态度和行为指标的影响捕捉到了这一鸿沟,并表明这两个群体同样有可能以非制度形式参与。然而,局内人参与的是气候和反种族主义等既定议题,而局外人参与的则是与科威德-19 相关的经济援助和公民自由限制等新议题。此外,动态模型显示,非制度性参与的根源在于不稳定的议题偏好。总之,本文认为,Covid-19 危机期间的参与进一步推动了抗议领域分化的趋势:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differentiation in Protest Politics: Participation by Political Insiders and Outsiders.

The political participation literature has documented a long-term trend of the normalization of noninstitutional participation that is often equated with the conventionalization of engagement in protest politics. Less is known on the extent to which noninstitutional forms are differentiated by their mobilization context. Population surveys find it difficult to contextualize individual engagement, and on-site surveys point to effects that are hard to generalize. This study fills this gap by emphasizing differentiation and distinguishing participation according to the issue of engagement. It introduces a conceptual distinction between political insiders and outsiders, defined based on the extent to which they are embedded in the organizational landscape of the dominant cleavage dimension. Using an original survey conducted in Germany during the Covid-19 crisis, the analysis demonstrates that general-population surveys are fit to examine issue-specific participation patterns. The results expose an insider and outsider divide, captured by the effect of attitudinal and behavioral indicators, and demonstrates that the two groups are equally likely to participate in noninstitutional forms. However, insiders engage on the established issues of climate and anti-racism, whereas outsiders engage on the new issues of Covid-19 related economic assistance and civil liberties restrictions. In addition, dynamic models reveal that noninstitutional participation is rooted in volatile issue preferences. Overall, the paper argues that participation during the Covid-19 crisis has furthered the trend towards a differentiated protest arena.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09846-7.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Behavior
Political Behavior POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Political Behavior publishes original research in the general fields of political behavior, institutions, processes, and policies. Approaches include economic (preference structuring, bargaining), psychological (attitude formation and change, motivations, perceptions), sociological (roles, group, class), or political (decision making, coalitions, influence). Articles focus on the political behavior (conventional or unconventional) of the individual person or small group (microanalysis), or of large organizations that participate in the political process such as parties, interest groups, political action committees, governmental agencies, and mass media (macroanalysis). As an interdisciplinary journal, Political Behavior integrates various approaches across different levels of theoretical abstraction and empirical domain (contextual analysis). Officially cited as: Polit Behav
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信